You will have to register
or login (See top or bottom of page) before you can post a message or view images: click the appropriate link to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Trying to change company drawing standard

I have very recently started at a new company (Small Engineering company). When creating drawings I am finding that there is no industry standard (BS or ASME etc) being followed.

I find creating drawings this way to be poor. It needlessly takes up page space for simple information. For example, a multiple dimension is called out as ‘1.00 THRU TYP. 2 PLCS’

When space on a drawing can become critical, and the extra time it takes to type the above into multiple dimensions I really would like to change it.

I would like to change to ASME Y14.5. This would change the same information to: ‘2X 1.00 THRU’ the same can be said for tapped hole where the company currently type out the note instead of using the symbols like; ↓ ( Not 100% correct symbol but you get the picture).

To stand any chance of making the change I really need to highlight the problems with the current non standardised approach. Other than what I have said already is there any other reasons as to why making the change would be required?I plan to create a duplicate drawing but with ASME Y14.5 standards applied and show the additional space and clarity to the drawing that is given but I don’t think it will be enough.

There are only two current engineering dimensioning and drawing standard in the world and one is ASME Y14.5-2009. The other is ISO 1101-2017 and all the perspective country derivatives which are simply ISO 1101 translated into different languages.

If your organization is NOT requiring a dimensioning and tolerancing standard used on your engineering drawings this may not be an immediate problem depending on the complexity of the end item being detailed. Never the less, using a dimensioning and tolerancing standard like ASME Y14.5-2009 properly eliminates any potential confusion or miss interpretations by manufacturing, quality or even the next engineer or designer working the engineering drawing. Slang being used on a drawing can be a real problem just like if I chose to respond to you in deep southern regional slang.

As far as saving space on an engineering drawing, I’m not on board with your perceptions. Engineering drawings that are created “crowded” can cause unintended interpretation problems as well as extend the detailing effort in time trying to save space and paper. Printing a “C” or even a “D” or larger size engineering drawing is not expensive. Paper is cheap and time is expensive.

My experience has shown me that engineering drawings created that are easy to read and even allow manufacturing and quality to make notes on are engineering drawings that are more successful and subject to fewer missed details and interpretation problems. Moreover, crowded engineering drawings are challenging to check for errors and working to minimize space used takes the designer and or engineers eye off what is most important – which is fit, form, function and ease of use (drawing).

BTW, I consult and train ASME Y14.5-2009 and ISO1101-2017 standards. Am certified by ASME at the senior level since the year 1996
and have been too and reviewed engineering drawings from 100's of companies. see: https://www.engineersedge.com/GDT_Training.htm

Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.

You have miss interpreted what I was trying to say and that was, I feel the current approach '1.00 THRU TYP. 2 PLCS' to be overly text heavy when it can be written as '2X 1.00 THRU'.
My aim is to declutter the drawings so that more space and clarity is given. I agree with all you have said above and are obviously very well placed to advise.

Could you please tell me how the following is done in the ISO standard:

2X 1.00
2X R (for a full rad)

ASME does not require a leading zero eg 0.500 what about ISO?

I only used the ISO standard or 6 month and did not like it having spent 10 years working with ASME.

I feel the current approach '1.00 THRU TYP. 2 PLCS' to be overly text heavy when it can be written as '2X 1.00 THRU'.
My aim is to declutter the drawings so that more space and clarity is given. I agree with all you have said above and are obviously very well placed to advise.

That's great, however you're not going to create more profitability, a better world or reduce engineering drawing creation time with this change in your organization. It's a drafting detail and your example does not change the quality, manufacturability, costing of the end item or the world in general. Honestly - both specifications work just fine and clutter perception is subjective.

Originally Posted by stevenburnett80

Could you please tell me how the following is done in the ISO standard:

2X 1.00
2X R (for a full rad)

ASME does not require a leading zero eg 0.500 what about ISO?

This question perfectly illustrates why we have dimensioning and tolerancing standards. Nothing personal, but these are very basic drafting questions.

2X 1.00
2X R (for a full rad)

Identical interpretations and application for tolerances except ISO would NOT show trailing zero's,

ISO shows leading zeros, ASME does not - Chapter two of the ASME Y14.5-2009 standard as well as any of my 6 published books on the subject detail the differences between imperial and SI units.

Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.

I appreciate this is very simple questions. I'm really just trying to be as basic as I can to identify does the ISO standard recognise '1.00 THRU TYP. 2 PLCS'

I am trying to establish if the company follow any drafting standard at all or do they simply do it to their own liking. If the company just please themselves then that will give me a basis for recommending we change to follow a recognised standard.

I appreciate this is very simple questions. I'm really just trying to be as basic as I can to identify does the ISO standard recognise '1.00 THRU TYP. 2 PLCS'

I am trying to establish if the company follow any drafting standard at all or do they simply do it to their own liking. If the company just please themselves then that will give me a basis for recommending we change to follow a recognised standard.

Let me answer your question more functionally.. I think this is what you are looking for.

There are organizational and production advantages when all drafting work is done to the same dimensioning and tolerancing standards. Some organizations call this “getting everybody on the same page”. This is the best reason to adopt an industry dimensioning and tolerancing standard.

The example you gave early in this thread are minor detail variations within the existing dimensioning and tolerancing standards – both ASME and ISO. Ultimately, drafting should be standardized within an organization and fit, form, function and cost effectiveness of the end item be the primary focus.

Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.

Engineers are by nature a rather anal bunch. We like things all neat and tidy. We like it when everyone follows the same rules. Unfortunately the rest of the world isn't necessarily that way. I have found that engineers that spent their formative years in highly disciplined environments (like aerospace or nuclear) can be quite surprised to learn that most design engineers do not live under similar "rules of communication". It can be quite upsetting. (I know this isn't on point but it is an example: I still remember an engineer who grew up in the nuclear industry expressing his surprise to learn that you could buy industrial air compressors off the shelf. He thought they were ALL special built.)

I have never (in 40 years) worked in such an environment, but most of the engineers that know me would tell you that I am the most disciplined as far as the formats and procedures in my work. Here's a hard fact for you: until your cohorts know and respect the work you create they will have little interest in changing the way the way have always done things just because it fits some standard. You will have more credibility with them when you have "paid your dues". You may not like that, but the sooner you can accept that undeniable fact of life, the sooner you can start to make a real and positive difference in the organization, without pissing anybody off. At this point you are there to learn. You need the older guys on your side. Be patient. Your chance will come.

Since there is no standard, that means you can follow your one in your own work. If it is truly as advantageous as you think, then over a period of time (a year or two), people will notice and you will get comments like "Your drawings are always so easy to read and clean looking" like I have. When that starts happening then you will have some credibility with your bosses and coworkers when you suggest adopting a company-wide standard.